Knock Out Punches!
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
I took him off ignore, Keith...for me it's all about the exchange of ideas. LB and I actually agree on a few things, although my idea of how to treat the Boy Scout Troop Leader pedophiles may even be a bit more extreme than his.
I doubt that we'll ever agree on which party is best to bring our country forward, but that's not my issue. I'm genuinely interested in others' views, they give me reason to think "outside the box", an issue with which I frequently struggle.
My 32 year career in education was in a field where change was the order of the day.....I had to be adaptive to the max! That is hard for somebody who likes routine, but it taught me that change can be good, even it it is hard for this ol' cowboy to appreciate the new learning curve that accompanies some of our technological advancements, as well as the mania over many of the "social networking sites". I don't Facebook, I don't tweet, don't need to "follow" anyone, I have much better things to do with the limited amount of time I have left...much prefer exchanging ideas with LB and Jim than all that other crap.
Cheers!
Doug
Glad to hear it Doug, you've always kept a cool head here. Would that "others" did too.
There's absolutely no point in losing one's rag just because they may not agree with you, or getting upset because someone else's world view does not coincide with your own.
As you say, the day that someone pipes up and says "Actually, you are right and I have been wrong all this time" is a myth, so why do peeps bang on at each other?
I do know, that if we were all in the same room face to face, the conversation would never go like this, so why on here?
Mystery..
There's absolutely no point in losing one's rag just because they may not agree with you, or getting upset because someone else's world view does not coincide with your own.
As you say, the day that someone pipes up and says "Actually, you are right and I have been wrong all this time" is a myth, so why do peeps bang on at each other?
I do know, that if we were all in the same room face to face, the conversation would never go like this, so why on here?
Mystery..
Keith,
No mystery. People don't have to deal directly with the consequence of their actions on the internet.
Being upset with what someone says or does is quite alright. How one responds is the true test of character.........
I heard a good quote last night,"A man without his word is merely a beast!"
No mystery. People don't have to deal directly with the consequence of their actions on the internet.
Being upset with what someone says or does is quite alright. How one responds is the true test of character.........
I heard a good quote last night,"A man without his word is merely a beast!"
I wish everyone would get this fired up about their local elections and send some decent people to DC. The executive branch is pretty useless if Congress refuses to cooperate. About the only thing the president can do on his own do is appoint cabinet positions to his biggest campaign donors and attempt to occupy a Middle Eastern country in the name of national security. Thank you Bush Administration, I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan will lovingly accept democracy and we can all vacation there in ten years. Leaving those countries a mess will without a doubt come back to haunt us.
Why do we distrust politicians so much? Because they give us every reason to. They go to Washington and they get fat. A seat in the Senate or House almost always results in great personal wealth. Who are these people? Are they not public servants? They work for us and they need to lose the big staff, read and understand all proposed legislation, and actually show up to cast an educated and untainted vote.
Why do we distrust politicians so much? Because they give us every reason to. They go to Washington and they get fat. A seat in the Senate or House almost always results in great personal wealth. Who are these people? Are they not public servants? They work for us and they need to lose the big staff, read and understand all proposed legislation, and actually show up to cast an educated and untainted vote.
Three very telling statements which I am fully in agreement with. What's the point in ranting to anonymous people when you could actually get out there and eyeball real people engage with them and at least try to make a REAL difference.
Why on earth did Blair & Co (in the UK) side with GW and agree to commit UK forces into Iraq, and what's worse, why the fuck did we trust them enough to believe their motives?
Instead of bashing "each other's party",
Bash them all!
Never ever again.....
Yes, liking that sentiment....
Pat
Supporter
Nah, it's not like the good old days when Saddam gassed his neighbors and his own people. Now THAT was a fun place to go… I met quite a few members of his army during part of a metals exchange program we had with the Iraqis in 1991. Surprisingly, they begged not to be repatriated back home after our “program” ended. I’m sure they were welcomed back by their benevolent government and embraced as heroes. I mean Saddam Hussein, and those rascal sons of his Uday and Qusay, what’s not to like???
But then Afghanistan has quietly evolved from the fourth century to the sixth. I've been to both. But if you are into that type of thing; save some money and visit Haiti, it’s closer, the people are nicer and it smells way better… sort of…
As for tourism, I’m seriously confident that once they stop killing themselves, Iraq will become a tourist destination in the next decade. Kurdistan is an especially amazing place - really! Kurdistan – Tomorrow's Iraq Today
Until your post, I had no idea that the Democratic controlled House and filibuster proof Senate didn't cooperate with Mr. Obama for the first two years of his presidency. I just don't understand how that same Democratic Controlled House and Senate allowed Mr. Bush free rein to ruin the economy yet didn’t cooperate with Mr. Obama to right the wrongs of his predecessor.
I think it was just angst over losing the last presidential election, Veek.
I blame Boehner...he took a hard line instantly and hasn't backed down, despite several efforts by the Dems to be more congenial Boehner has steadfastly refused to lead his party in the House anywhere except into greater gridlock.
The Dems seem more interested, at least to me, in working with the Repubs. The Repubs have no interest in working with the Dems, their only interest is in keeping the country from moving forward so that they can blame the current POTUS for the unemployment and economic issues (even though you and I know the Repubs were the primary reason we got there). It's all about getting rid of B.O., not about doing what is right for their constituents or helping the country recover from the recession.
You know, I have a classic approach-avoidance conflict in reference to Romney. On one hand I know in my heart that his election would signal the end of the great economic engine we know as the middle class, so I hope he doesn't get elected. On the other hand, I don't think ANYONE can do anything about the economic and unemployment problems...it's a world-wide issue, not just an American issue. There is a huge part in my heart that hopes, sort of, that Romney wins so that in 4 years we can hold his feet to the fire for failing to improve the economy and diminish unemployment in just 4 years, just as he is attempting to do to B.O. right now :idea: .
Unfortunately, Romney will have used those 4 years to further the gap between the have's and the have-not's...with the result that further legislation will be passed to protect the wealthy at tremendous cost to the less fortunate......what a sad situation that will be :thumbsdown:
Cheers!
Doug
Pat
Supporter
Doug, I think the anticipated "end of the middle class" under Romney is a bit farfetched. You sound like all the liberals panicked that Regan was going to start WWIII AND ruin the middle class. Should Romney win election (which I don't think will happen), he has a second term to consider. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has nothing to lose (I will transmit this information to Vladimir). If Mr. Romney's efforts are that destructive to the primary voting block of middle class independents, he won't be reelected and the Republicans will be swept out of office. On the other hand, if the current administration's fiscal policy continues to run $trillion deficits, I am certain the end of the middle class is on the way. Remember if Mr. Obama gets his tax plan as he wishes, all it brings in is $80B a year more than current tax revenues. That doesn’t even chip the paint on a $1.3T annual deficit and $16T debt, $82B more than the 2012 deficit projected in CBO's baseline.
As for Bohner, the new book by Carl Woodward is pretty intriguing as to how the deal went down. It's pretty surprising (to me anyway). I don't want to betray the plot but it's a good read. There is plenty of blame to go around, including Mr. Obama.
My contention all along has been the issue of big government, be it that of Mr. Bush or Mr. Obama. It is too big, incredibly inefficient and wrongfully picks sides. It also should not be in the business of selective underwriting of core business risk or have the power to support monopolies or select winners or losers. The housing crisis would have been avoided if the banks were forced to eat their speculative real estate loans/securities instead of Fannie and Freddie underwriting the risk. One has to wonder if they knew there would be no bailout to begin with, then would they ever have underwritten the risk in the first place. Personally, I don’t understand why nobody from Goldman Sachs isn’t in prison.
If you read "American Icon" by Bryce Hoffman, it's the story of Ford's transformation under Mr. Mullally, they took the pain, restructured and rationalized their business without government intervention. GM was, like the mortgage brokerage industry, underwritten with the bail-out and by all accounts, they really aren't any better position strategically than before the bailout. The book is a great read and left me with utter contempt for the former leadership of General Motors.
As for Bohner, the new book by Carl Woodward is pretty intriguing as to how the deal went down. It's pretty surprising (to me anyway). I don't want to betray the plot but it's a good read. There is plenty of blame to go around, including Mr. Obama.
My contention all along has been the issue of big government, be it that of Mr. Bush or Mr. Obama. It is too big, incredibly inefficient and wrongfully picks sides. It also should not be in the business of selective underwriting of core business risk or have the power to support monopolies or select winners or losers. The housing crisis would have been avoided if the banks were forced to eat their speculative real estate loans/securities instead of Fannie and Freddie underwriting the risk. One has to wonder if they knew there would be no bailout to begin with, then would they ever have underwritten the risk in the first place. Personally, I don’t understand why nobody from Goldman Sachs isn’t in prison.
If you read "American Icon" by Bryce Hoffman, it's the story of Ford's transformation under Mr. Mullally, they took the pain, restructured and rationalized their business without government intervention. GM was, like the mortgage brokerage industry, underwritten with the bail-out and by all accounts, they really aren't any better position strategically than before the bailout. The book is a great read and left me with utter contempt for the former leadership of General Motors.
After 8 yrs of Clinton we were on solid ground. After 8 yrs of Bush we were left with a broken country and we took the world's economy down with us.
With no major changes in policy and not even an apology from the republicans how do we give them another shot. The RNC should have been held on Alcatraz.
Veek
You are right about the conditions in Iraq before our occupation. Something had to be done but not by us. The people of Iraq needed to organize and rise up like most of their neighbors are doing right now. I think G.W. is a good hearted man but not qualified to run a lemonade stand. His cabinet walked all over him and did as they pleased. We went to Iraq soley based on false intelligence. Congress is just as guilty for failing to enforce the War Powers Act and providing the funding for G.W.'s war.
With no major changes in policy and not even an apology from the republicans how do we give them another shot. The RNC should have been held on Alcatraz.
Veek
You are right about the conditions in Iraq before our occupation. Something had to be done but not by us. The people of Iraq needed to organize and rise up like most of their neighbors are doing right now. I think G.W. is a good hearted man but not qualified to run a lemonade stand. His cabinet walked all over him and did as they pleased. We went to Iraq soley based on false intelligence. Congress is just as guilty for failing to enforce the War Powers Act and providing the funding for G.W.'s war.
1995 to 2001, Republican Congress and Senate, the ones who passed a balanced budget bill to Clinton to act on. Think about it!
If you want to take credit for that than you have to own up to the last two years as well. Its not all Obama's fault. Its tough being the pres when the speaker of the house will not even return your phone calls. Real professional. I'm not enamored with Obama either but Romney? No one even liked him until he was the last republican standing.......just plain embarassing. Continued tax cuts and more deregulation is terrifying. I'm tired of hearing how the free markets need to be left unchecked while big business is allowed to influence the entire political process.
I guess we can't agree on all these issues but hopefully everyone agrees that we at least need a functional government no matter its size. I would vote republican for the right person. Are you voting for Romney because he is the best choice or because he is not Obama?
Last edited:
The Democrats had the Congress and Senate from January 2007 to January 2011 as well as the Presidency from January 2009. They have had the Senate and Presidency since January 2011. The speaker of the house won't return the Pesidents phone call? Get serious, where do you get this garbage? It is his fault, how long is this blame going to go on, you've been in charge since January 2007.
Tom, IMHO Romney won't be able to carry through on his promises to ease unemployment and balance the budget if he is elected. It's not his fault, any more than Obama's "failure" to do so is his fault, this is a global issue, not just a national issue.
However, I agree with Chris....Boehner is an A$$H0LE of the first degree, it's been obvious for a long time. If we want to hold anyone's feet to the fire for the failure of our government to work for the benefit of our people, it's Boehner. IMHO he ought to be tried for treason....our nation's credit rating was reduced because the rating company did not believe that our government would be able to work through the issues facing it, and Boehner is the stick in the mud that is stopping all that.
I, for one, don't blame Obama for losing his temper as has been reported. Boehner has shown nothing but contempt for Obama since he was elected and no matter what Obama tries to do Boehner is going to try to make it look like Obama's failure.
Talk about a sabateur....and all because he has a case of sour grapes. Even if McCain had been elected we'd be where we are, this economic downturn is a runaway train and the entire world is home to its tracks. Boehner could help, but his choice is one of hyper-partisanism over the good of the American public.
Shame on him.....in my view he's worse than Pelosi :thumbsdown: (and I truly disliked Pelosi).
Doug
However, I agree with Chris....Boehner is an A$$H0LE of the first degree, it's been obvious for a long time. If we want to hold anyone's feet to the fire for the failure of our government to work for the benefit of our people, it's Boehner. IMHO he ought to be tried for treason....our nation's credit rating was reduced because the rating company did not believe that our government would be able to work through the issues facing it, and Boehner is the stick in the mud that is stopping all that.
I, for one, don't blame Obama for losing his temper as has been reported. Boehner has shown nothing but contempt for Obama since he was elected and no matter what Obama tries to do Boehner is going to try to make it look like Obama's failure.
Talk about a sabateur....and all because he has a case of sour grapes. Even if McCain had been elected we'd be where we are, this economic downturn is a runaway train and the entire world is home to its tracks. Boehner could help, but his choice is one of hyper-partisanism over the good of the American public.
Shame on him.....in my view he's worse than Pelosi :thumbsdown: (and I truly disliked Pelosi).
Doug
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Pelosi? is she the soccer mum that shoots bear?
No, she's the Starkist tuna mom that kept minmum wage from being raised in American Samoa that affects the Starkist plant there because she owns big stocks in Starkist tuna. Guess it's hard to practice what you preach.
Doug, Obama had 2 years with both Congress and Senate, he did nothing for the economy. Stimulus money went to places like Solindra, Ener1, Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Amonix Solar, Spectra Watt, and Eastern Energy. They all have two things in common, they are bankrupt, and they all contributed to Obama. Bain Capital had a 78% success rate with companies they took over. Obama has O% with our investments. If you want to bitch at Boener (at least Congress produces bills to vote on) you may want to look at Harry Reid, nothing for the Federal Budget in over 3 years. That's the price for having an academic community organizer in the White House
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
You may want to look at your investment portfolio in 1999. Mr. Clinton presided over the Enron scandal as well as the dot-com bubble crash. It's a bit revisionist to say he either left with a great economy or a surplus. While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
The collapse of the tech bubble took place during 2000-2001. Some companies, such as Pets.com, failed completely. Others lost a large portion of their market capitalization but remained stable and profitable, e.g., Cisco, whose stock declined by 86%. Some later recovered and surpassed their dot-com-bubble peaks, e.g., Amazon.com, whose stock went from 107 to 7 dollars per share, but a decade later exceeded 200.
You’re also on pretty shaky ground on the war powers act.
President Bush did not invoke the War Powers Act. But to be accurate, Mr. Bush, did request—and receive—a resolution of support from Congress for the Iraq war, but Mr. Bush also made clear that his compliance with the War Powers Act didn’t mean he agreed with the act’s constitutionality. It was seen as a compromise that permitted the action without mandating that action being taken (the resolution had robust bipartisan support). So the Act was superseded by a Joint Resolution from Congress that permitted the President to use armed force in Iraq. It should also be noted In that conflict, the United States, in conjunction with a number of other nations, operated under the auspices of a United Nations Security Resolution. This is similar to Mr. Clinton’s adventure in Bosnia and his bombing of Iraq in 1998 during his impeachment vote. Mr. Obama’s intervention in Libya and also received no authorization under the Act.
No Congressional authority of any sort was sought or forthcoming in the Afghanistan War to include the surge by Mr. Obama.(It should be noted that 70% of the casualties in that war occurred under the leadership of the current administration and their revised and heavily restrictive rules of engagement. ) In fact, the War Powers Act of 1973 has been invoked by Congress only a couple of times, and never by a sitting President of either party.
The path we are on is unsustainable and there is no getting around that. I find it interesting that those of you that support Mr. Obama do so with the bashing of Mr. and Ms. Romney as well and Mr. Ryan and not lauding the expected achievments of an Obama second term. Clint Eastwood is right...
Hi Tom
I was referring to the time John Boner could not emerge from the tanning booth quick enough to answer Obama's call. It led to a breakdown in talks and this is all detailed in Bob Woodward's new book (not flattering to either side)
At least no one here is a Pelosi fan. Can we build on that? By this time next year I hope we all can take a road trip together in a Ford Festiva. Maybe check out some 40's at a vintage race?